Well, the bride turned up, which was a good thing considering all the effort that was made to make her day special! Kate Middleton looked fantastic! "Like a young Grace Kelly", someone remarked as she stepped out of the car at the Abbey!
I don't want it to sound like something out of Mills & Boon, but the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge looked happy together and not as if they were being forced up the aisle, as was the case with Prince Charles and his young bride, Diana Spencer.
It did strike me watching the ceremony that the new Duchess emanates an natural air of style and dignity about her, sadly lacking in other members of the Royal Family, although the Princes William and Harry do appear to be decent young men. We might not want to admit it, but Prince Charles has brought up his sons well and their relationship with Camilla appears to be genuine.
It could be another thirty or forty years before William and Kate occupy the throne, so it will be interesting to see what they make of their lives in the intervening years.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Thursday, 28 April 2011
The AV Debate: Oh! You are awful!
Oh! You are awful! The politicians are being absolutely beastly to each other over the great AV (Alternative Vote) debate, which has galvanised politicians but has basically gone the way of the fairies as far the general public is concerned.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the "Yes" to AV is the best and fairest voting system, but the Conservatives don't. Labour's Ed Miliband is backing the "Yes" campaign, but over half his party are dead against it and while everyone expects some fallout within the Coalition, the Labour party has its fair share of internal bitching and back-biting over the issue.
Part of the problem is that the message coming from Labour is not that "Yes" is right, but that if the vote went in its favour, it would create problems for David Cameron within his own party for agreeing the referendum in the first place.
Lord Mandelson, the former Labour Business Secretary sees a "Yes" success as a means to cause problems for the Prime Minister. "He has many critics , many detractors in the Conservative Party. They are desperately searching for some weapon to use against him and to pitch him out. If there was a Yes vote that weapon would be placed into the hands of his critics - and I think they'd use it."
Not exactly upholding democratic ideals is it? In an attack on Lord Mandelson, his former colleague, the ex-Labour Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett responded: " I think he has got it exactly wrong. It's not a short-time kick against either Nick Clegg or David Cameron that worries me. It's taking away power from the electorate and putting it in the hands of the politicians."
It is said that over half of Labour MPs disagree with their leader over the AV issue and many Senior Labour politicians are actively promoting the "No" campaign. Others, including Shadow Cabinet members are opposed to AV but are refusing to declare their views so as not to be seen opposing Mr Miliband.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats and its Coalition partner, the Conservatives, continue their war of words, accusing each other of all sorts of dirty deeds and damn lies. The word from Downing Street is that all is well with the Prime Minister and his Deputy Nick Clegg, despite their different views on AV. But whichever way the vote goes, one can't help but feel that the future may be a little uncomfortable for both men and their Coalition government.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the "Yes" to AV is the best and fairest voting system, but the Conservatives don't. Labour's Ed Miliband is backing the "Yes" campaign, but over half his party are dead against it and while everyone expects some fallout within the Coalition, the Labour party has its fair share of internal bitching and back-biting over the issue.
Part of the problem is that the message coming from Labour is not that "Yes" is right, but that if the vote went in its favour, it would create problems for David Cameron within his own party for agreeing the referendum in the first place.
Lord Mandelson, the former Labour Business Secretary sees a "Yes" success as a means to cause problems for the Prime Minister. "He has many critics , many detractors in the Conservative Party. They are desperately searching for some weapon to use against him and to pitch him out. If there was a Yes vote that weapon would be placed into the hands of his critics - and I think they'd use it."
Not exactly upholding democratic ideals is it? In an attack on Lord Mandelson, his former colleague, the ex-Labour Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett responded: " I think he has got it exactly wrong. It's not a short-time kick against either Nick Clegg or David Cameron that worries me. It's taking away power from the electorate and putting it in the hands of the politicians."
It is said that over half of Labour MPs disagree with their leader over the AV issue and many Senior Labour politicians are actively promoting the "No" campaign. Others, including Shadow Cabinet members are opposed to AV but are refusing to declare their views so as not to be seen opposing Mr Miliband.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats and its Coalition partner, the Conservatives, continue their war of words, accusing each other of all sorts of dirty deeds and damn lies. The word from Downing Street is that all is well with the Prime Minister and his Deputy Nick Clegg, despite their different views on AV. But whichever way the vote goes, one can't help but feel that the future may be a little uncomfortable for both men and their Coalition government.
The Royal Wedding: The world loves a romance...
The Monarchy as an institution may no longer be relevant to the majority in the UK, but the world loves a romance and the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is expected to attract an audience of over 2 billion when they finally say "I do".
Kate Middleton does appear to be playing an active role in the preparations for the ceremony, even attending another rehearsal today. Last night she spent it with her fiancee at Clarence House, something that would have had the middle-classes of England spluttering into their tea just a few years ago.
The world will be watching an occasion full of pageantry and majesty and already the crowd camping outside Westminster Abbey is starting to build. Over 7,000 journalists are in London for the occasion, which has extra poignancy because of its association with the late Princess of Wales. No doubt she will be mentioned by commentators many times during the festivities and by giving his bride-to-be his late mother's engagement ring, he is ensuring Princess Diana will not be forgotten on his big day.
Prince William will not have done anything without the agreement of his father, Prince Charles. The Princes Harry and William are reported to have a great relationship with their father and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall and whatever their mother taught them about "normal" life, both have emerged as men of the Monarchy, fully steeped in its ways and conscious of their places within it.
Tomorrow, Friday, Catherine Middleton will enter the Abbey as a commoner and emerge with a new title and the chance to add her own grace and style to "The Firm", as the Royals refer to themselves. Let's hope the Windsors welcome her with a warmth they never showed her soon-to-be husband's mother.
The world will be watching and hoping that this couple live happily ever after.
Kate Middleton does appear to be playing an active role in the preparations for the ceremony, even attending another rehearsal today. Last night she spent it with her fiancee at Clarence House, something that would have had the middle-classes of England spluttering into their tea just a few years ago.
The world will be watching an occasion full of pageantry and majesty and already the crowd camping outside Westminster Abbey is starting to build. Over 7,000 journalists are in London for the occasion, which has extra poignancy because of its association with the late Princess of Wales. No doubt she will be mentioned by commentators many times during the festivities and by giving his bride-to-be his late mother's engagement ring, he is ensuring Princess Diana will not be forgotten on his big day.
Prince William will not have done anything without the agreement of his father, Prince Charles. The Princes Harry and William are reported to have a great relationship with their father and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall and whatever their mother taught them about "normal" life, both have emerged as men of the Monarchy, fully steeped in its ways and conscious of their places within it.
Tomorrow, Friday, Catherine Middleton will enter the Abbey as a commoner and emerge with a new title and the chance to add her own grace and style to "The Firm", as the Royals refer to themselves. Let's hope the Windsors welcome her with a warmth they never showed her soon-to-be husband's mother.
The world will be watching and hoping that this couple live happily ever after.
Anne Robinson: The Queen of Mean too bitchy to be replaced..
Anne Robinson has announced that next year, after twelve years, she will step down as the host of The Weakest Link. As the show is based around her own bitchy persona, the producers have decided not to proceed with another host, ending its successful UK run.
Anne Robinson's own life is like a Hollywood movie, losing custody of her own daughter due to her alcoholism and then after years as a drunk, turning her life around, to become a major television talent here in the UK and, for awhile, in the United States. Her brand of bitchy put downs, have made her a rich woman and The Weakest Link is now broadcast around the world, with local presenters aping Miss Robinson's steely camp style.
In the UK she is famous for public declarations about her wealth and is never embarrassed about discussing the details of her face lifts and botox sessions. The 102 year old, sorry, 67 year old, Miss Robinson also admitted in an interview with Aida Edemariam for the Daily Mail that she isn't all bad.
"I occasionally come off and say "Cut that out" - not often, but I did it the other week, actually. I said to a student "That dress must have looked nice when it fitted you" and afterwards I said: "Don't put that in, that hurt her."
Miss Robinson, who hails from Liverpool, will continue to do Watchdog and other programmes and no doubt will do everything possible to retain her title as "The Queen of Mean".
Anne Robinson's own life is like a Hollywood movie, losing custody of her own daughter due to her alcoholism and then after years as a drunk, turning her life around, to become a major television talent here in the UK and, for awhile, in the United States. Her brand of bitchy put downs, have made her a rich woman and The Weakest Link is now broadcast around the world, with local presenters aping Miss Robinson's steely camp style.
In the UK she is famous for public declarations about her wealth and is never embarrassed about discussing the details of her face lifts and botox sessions. The 102 year old, sorry, 67 year old, Miss Robinson also admitted in an interview with Aida Edemariam for the Daily Mail that she isn't all bad.
"I occasionally come off and say "Cut that out" - not often, but I did it the other week, actually. I said to a student "That dress must have looked nice when it fitted you" and afterwards I said: "Don't put that in, that hurt her."
Miss Robinson, who hails from Liverpool, will continue to do Watchdog and other programmes and no doubt will do everything possible to retain her title as "The Queen of Mean".
Super-Injunctions: Judges cause outrage here in UK....
Over the years, judges have outraged the population with decisions that go against the moral code of the country, but sometimes they have been ahead of public opinion and made the right choices despite that. At other times they have proved to be bigoted and vindictive in their sentencing and judgements and the majority of us do believe that they live in such a rarefied environment that they can have absolutely no idea how the rest of us live.
The latest outrage here in the UK is the granting, by some judges, of so-called "super-injunctions" against the public airing of bad behaviour on the part of the rich and famous, mostly sportsmen, actors, TV stars and a banker or two, on the basis that such disclosures would be damaging to their families and their reputations.
It begs the question why such men didn't think of the consequences before (mainly) unzipping their pants, with someone other than their partners?! Of course, the real "crime" is not their actions, but being caught by the tabloid media who live and breathe such scandals and is horrified that the judicial system is doing them out of business.
There are those who would say what business is it of ours what other people do in their personal lives, but in truth, it is accepted that the lives of the rich and famous are in the public domain and therefore not subject to normal rights of privacy. What is also being questioned is that here in the UK it is only the rich who can afford to go to court to seek such injunctions, creating a two-tier system of justice, one for those who have and one for the rest of us. That it has always been so is probably the reality.
The decision by one of the men, Andrew Marr, political commentator and TV star, to announce that he had sought such an injunction in 2008 but was "embarrassed" about it, has been broadly welcomed by most. Certainly his friends in the media were quick to praise him, although others like Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, said he was a "touch hypocritical".
Hislop also said: "As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist."
Mr Marr wanted to hid the fact that he had paid maintenance for a child who DNA later proved not to be his. Fortunately his marriage has survived the affair, which happened some years ago.
The Prime Minister has stepped into the debate, saying the granting of the injunctions were "too widespread". However, the media (and the web) will ensure that their effectiveness will not be long-lasting and that details will emerge. For most of the celebrities, their moment of madness, will eventually cost them dear.
The latest outrage here in the UK is the granting, by some judges, of so-called "super-injunctions" against the public airing of bad behaviour on the part of the rich and famous, mostly sportsmen, actors, TV stars and a banker or two, on the basis that such disclosures would be damaging to their families and their reputations.
It begs the question why such men didn't think of the consequences before (mainly) unzipping their pants, with someone other than their partners?! Of course, the real "crime" is not their actions, but being caught by the tabloid media who live and breathe such scandals and is horrified that the judicial system is doing them out of business.
There are those who would say what business is it of ours what other people do in their personal lives, but in truth, it is accepted that the lives of the rich and famous are in the public domain and therefore not subject to normal rights of privacy. What is also being questioned is that here in the UK it is only the rich who can afford to go to court to seek such injunctions, creating a two-tier system of justice, one for those who have and one for the rest of us. That it has always been so is probably the reality.
The decision by one of the men, Andrew Marr, political commentator and TV star, to announce that he had sought such an injunction in 2008 but was "embarrassed" about it, has been broadly welcomed by most. Certainly his friends in the media were quick to praise him, although others like Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, said he was a "touch hypocritical".
Hislop also said: "As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist."
Mr Marr wanted to hid the fact that he had paid maintenance for a child who DNA later proved not to be his. Fortunately his marriage has survived the affair, which happened some years ago.
The Prime Minister has stepped into the debate, saying the granting of the injunctions were "too widespread". However, the media (and the web) will ensure that their effectiveness will not be long-lasting and that details will emerge. For most of the celebrities, their moment of madness, will eventually cost them dear.
Monday, 25 April 2011
The Royal Wedding: Friday, 29th April 2011..a prisoner of Royal tradition..
She is already the most photographed woman in the world and after the Royal Wedding on Friday, 29th April 2011, Catherine Middleton, will become a prisoner of Royal tradition and the world media. She may sleep with Prince William, but she will become betrothed to a dynasty, today ruthless in its determination to survive and, in years gone by, as bloody as any modern Middle Eastern despot.
Her job will be to support her husband and eventually produce an heir and a spare, to be trained and ready to replace their father when he too vacates the Windsor throne. It is not of immediate concern, as The Queen and her second-in-command, Prince Charles, are in fine fettle, allowing William and Catherine some breathing space to play at being just like any normal couple. Fat chance of that happening, of course!
The media frenzy has already begun, with concerns about her weight and ability to cope with the poisonous toxic atmosphere that surrounds the Royals, already receiving massive coverage. Will the Princess Royal, curtsy to the new Princess? Not even hot coals to the buttocks would make the rude Princess Anne bow to anyone! She disliked William's mother, barely tolerates her own brother, The Prince of Wales and is likely to find the wedding on Friday a bore and an inconvenience!
Catherine Middleton has become an instant clothes horse and International celebrity; every move she makes in the coming years will be photographed, analysed and spewed out for public consumption. Her own family will hardly ever see her and she will spend her life smelling fresh paint, shaking hands and passing inane comments to total strangers.
She and Prince William appear to be genuinely in love and there are no rumours of a mistress in the background. Catherine Middleton wears Princess Diana's engagement ring and during the wedding ceremony it is likely William will think of his mother, unhappy in life and buried, alone, in a watery grave on a small island. He will surely be determined that the same fate does not happen to his own Princess.
Her job will be to support her husband and eventually produce an heir and a spare, to be trained and ready to replace their father when he too vacates the Windsor throne. It is not of immediate concern, as The Queen and her second-in-command, Prince Charles, are in fine fettle, allowing William and Catherine some breathing space to play at being just like any normal couple. Fat chance of that happening, of course!
The media frenzy has already begun, with concerns about her weight and ability to cope with the poisonous toxic atmosphere that surrounds the Royals, already receiving massive coverage. Will the Princess Royal, curtsy to the new Princess? Not even hot coals to the buttocks would make the rude Princess Anne bow to anyone! She disliked William's mother, barely tolerates her own brother, The Prince of Wales and is likely to find the wedding on Friday a bore and an inconvenience!
Catherine Middleton has become an instant clothes horse and International celebrity; every move she makes in the coming years will be photographed, analysed and spewed out for public consumption. Her own family will hardly ever see her and she will spend her life smelling fresh paint, shaking hands and passing inane comments to total strangers.
She and Prince William appear to be genuinely in love and there are no rumours of a mistress in the background. Catherine Middleton wears Princess Diana's engagement ring and during the wedding ceremony it is likely William will think of his mother, unhappy in life and buried, alone, in a watery grave on a small island. He will surely be determined that the same fate does not happen to his own Princess.
Libya, Syria and beyond: Mr Obama not being decisive...?
When George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to invade Iraq, both had a dream that they would eventually ride into Baghdad, feted by a grateful nation. The reality was different and the reputations of both men have forever been sullied by their actions.
Barack Obama, in his efforts to avoid such a fate, has also failed to provide decisive leadership in dealing with Libya and elsewhere, but in doing so he has to take a large portion of the blame for the current situation whereby Gaddafi's supporters and henchmen appear to be able to freely go about their business of brutally murdering fellow-citizens.
Why are Nato planes not sending the Gaddafi forces running for the hills instead of advancing further into territory held by rebel forces? Is this because of the lack of planes, due to the gutless lack of action from some European and Arab countries? And what about America's withdrawal of air support? Not only is this giving solace to the tyrant in Libya, but also those leaders in neighbouring countries who want to desperately hold on to power and are quite nonchalant about killing their own.
However, Mr Obama's lack of action may exactly be what the American people want. But what may be good for the USA, may not be good for the rest of the world. For the world's only superpower not to take an active role in policing troubled spots must be music to the ears of despotic leaders everywhere. It is hoped that behind the scenes, the USA is playing a vital part in the Libyan operation, but sending a few drone planes may not be enough to unseat Mr Gaddafi and his equally mad family.
Perhaps world leaders like Sarkozy, Cameron and a reluctant Obama, should never have encouraged the rebels in their cause? Gaddafi would have swiftly moved to quell the uprising and hundreds of people would still be alive, even if enslaved. Instead the rebels fight on, forever hopeful that the West will go that one step further to help them. The latest news that the rebels have regained the upper-hand in Misrata is a major setback for Gaddafi's forces and a big boost for the opposition, but for how long?
In Syria, the regime is determined to cling to power, sending the army with heavy tanks into areas of protest, to arrest, maim or kill whoever stands in the way. The USA is threatening the introduction of sanctions, but frankly for a regime desperate to hold on, such threats are meaningless as it goes about its business of butchering its own citizens. The corrupt and brutal regime in Syria, backed by Iran, knows it can do what the hell it likes. It and the rest of the world knows the West will not directly intervene and there will be many on all sides who will applaud that decision.
Perhaps the West should remain completely aloof from the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East? Ultimately, whatever replaces the current corrupt regimes will not necessarily be in the interest of the West. It is unlikely to be the kind of democracy we recognise and maybe Mr Obama, not as gung-ho as the French and the British, is conscious of this? The US President may, in fact, be right to remain a reluctant participant.
Barack Obama, in his efforts to avoid such a fate, has also failed to provide decisive leadership in dealing with Libya and elsewhere, but in doing so he has to take a large portion of the blame for the current situation whereby Gaddafi's supporters and henchmen appear to be able to freely go about their business of brutally murdering fellow-citizens.
Why are Nato planes not sending the Gaddafi forces running for the hills instead of advancing further into territory held by rebel forces? Is this because of the lack of planes, due to the gutless lack of action from some European and Arab countries? And what about America's withdrawal of air support? Not only is this giving solace to the tyrant in Libya, but also those leaders in neighbouring countries who want to desperately hold on to power and are quite nonchalant about killing their own.
However, Mr Obama's lack of action may exactly be what the American people want. But what may be good for the USA, may not be good for the rest of the world. For the world's only superpower not to take an active role in policing troubled spots must be music to the ears of despotic leaders everywhere. It is hoped that behind the scenes, the USA is playing a vital part in the Libyan operation, but sending a few drone planes may not be enough to unseat Mr Gaddafi and his equally mad family.
Perhaps world leaders like Sarkozy, Cameron and a reluctant Obama, should never have encouraged the rebels in their cause? Gaddafi would have swiftly moved to quell the uprising and hundreds of people would still be alive, even if enslaved. Instead the rebels fight on, forever hopeful that the West will go that one step further to help them. The latest news that the rebels have regained the upper-hand in Misrata is a major setback for Gaddafi's forces and a big boost for the opposition, but for how long?
In Syria, the regime is determined to cling to power, sending the army with heavy tanks into areas of protest, to arrest, maim or kill whoever stands in the way. The USA is threatening the introduction of sanctions, but frankly for a regime desperate to hold on, such threats are meaningless as it goes about its business of butchering its own citizens. The corrupt and brutal regime in Syria, backed by Iran, knows it can do what the hell it likes. It and the rest of the world knows the West will not directly intervene and there will be many on all sides who will applaud that decision.
Perhaps the West should remain completely aloof from the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East? Ultimately, whatever replaces the current corrupt regimes will not necessarily be in the interest of the West. It is unlikely to be the kind of democracy we recognise and maybe Mr Obama, not as gung-ho as the French and the British, is conscious of this? The US President may, in fact, be right to remain a reluctant participant.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
America: Bradley Manning's treatment lacking in human decency...
I have always seen America has a fair country, sometimes flawed, but ultimately doing what is right and proper. However, its treatment of Private Bradley Manning has been lacking in human decency. I have mixed views on whether it was right that Manning should have passed confidential documents to the egotistical Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, but he not only deserves a fair trial in keeping with the law of the land, but also be treated humanely while in custody.
It seems he has been moved to another military prison and it is hoped that his treatment will be better than he received at Fort Leavenworth, where for a time he was made to sleep naked, stand outside his cell for inspection stripped and wear a smock during daytime. In addition his only exercise was to walk in circles around another prison room and reply every five minutes to the question "Are you okay?". He has been held in solitary confinement and refused visits, with a level of surveillance that can only be described as cruel and vindictive.
Amnesty International and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, have expressed concern about his treatment, which is damning for a country that purports to be the world's moral policeman and an embarrassment for Barack Obama, who has allowed it to happen on his watch. As with Guantanamo Bay, Mr Obama has a knack of bowing down to the military.
One can understand the anger of Americans to any illegal disclosures damaging to the country and its security, but if another country treated one of its own citizens in such a manner, then the rest of the world would rightly complain.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Private Manning's actions, he should not be punished without a fair trial. It is shameful and disappointing whenever America stands accused of behaviour lacking in humanity.
It seems he has been moved to another military prison and it is hoped that his treatment will be better than he received at Fort Leavenworth, where for a time he was made to sleep naked, stand outside his cell for inspection stripped and wear a smock during daytime. In addition his only exercise was to walk in circles around another prison room and reply every five minutes to the question "Are you okay?". He has been held in solitary confinement and refused visits, with a level of surveillance that can only be described as cruel and vindictive.
Amnesty International and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, have expressed concern about his treatment, which is damning for a country that purports to be the world's moral policeman and an embarrassment for Barack Obama, who has allowed it to happen on his watch. As with Guantanamo Bay, Mr Obama has a knack of bowing down to the military.
One can understand the anger of Americans to any illegal disclosures damaging to the country and its security, but if another country treated one of its own citizens in such a manner, then the rest of the world would rightly complain.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Private Manning's actions, he should not be punished without a fair trial. It is shameful and disappointing whenever America stands accused of behaviour lacking in humanity.
Monday, 18 April 2011
The Alternative Vote: Apathy is the main beneficiary....
With the UK population worried about job losses, benefit cuts, higher taxes and premium petrol prices, it is no wonder that apathy is the main beneficiary of the campaign for AV (Alternative Vote), demanded by the Liberal Democrats.
At present the UK has a first-past-the-post electoral system, but both the Liberal Democrats and Labour feel that AV, which allocates votes to all candidates in order of preference, is a much fairer system. David Cameron and the Conservative Party are campaigning against AV and for the current system and have been accused by some of their Coalition partners within the Lib Dems of "dirty tricks" and scaremongering.
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary in the Coalition and undoubtedly the grumpiest man in British politics, is to share a platform today with the Labour leader Ed Miliband, in support of a "Yes" vote. This follows his negative comments about David Cameron's speech on immigration and will fuel even more rumours of a rift in the Coalition and his relationship with his own party leader, Nick Clegg.
Meanwhile, the general public is not amused that millions of pounds is being spent on the campaign, brought about because it was a demand of Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats as part of the agreement to join the Conservatives in the Coalition government.
Nick Clegg has become the most unpopular figure in British politics, mainly because he has been seen to sacrefice a number of deeply-held Lib Dem principles for a place in government. It is therefore unfortunate that many see the referendum as about him and not electoral reform.
One wonders if Labour's heart is truly with the Liberal Democrats on the issue, or if Miliband and his party see this as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Coalition parties? In the mucky world of politics who knows? Sadly, the voting public no longer cares, such is its low opinion of politicians and the political system in general.
The "No" vote is ahead in the polls which could spell trouble for Nick Clegg. There is a large section of Liberal Democrats with a phobic hatred of the relationship between Cameron and Clegg and only accept it as a price to pay in order to achieve AV. Should the "Yes" campaign not succeed then the knives will be out for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Coalition government could implode.
At present the UK has a first-past-the-post electoral system, but both the Liberal Democrats and Labour feel that AV, which allocates votes to all candidates in order of preference, is a much fairer system. David Cameron and the Conservative Party are campaigning against AV and for the current system and have been accused by some of their Coalition partners within the Lib Dems of "dirty tricks" and scaremongering.
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary in the Coalition and undoubtedly the grumpiest man in British politics, is to share a platform today with the Labour leader Ed Miliband, in support of a "Yes" vote. This follows his negative comments about David Cameron's speech on immigration and will fuel even more rumours of a rift in the Coalition and his relationship with his own party leader, Nick Clegg.
Meanwhile, the general public is not amused that millions of pounds is being spent on the campaign, brought about because it was a demand of Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats as part of the agreement to join the Conservatives in the Coalition government.
Nick Clegg has become the most unpopular figure in British politics, mainly because he has been seen to sacrefice a number of deeply-held Lib Dem principles for a place in government. It is therefore unfortunate that many see the referendum as about him and not electoral reform.
One wonders if Labour's heart is truly with the Liberal Democrats on the issue, or if Miliband and his party see this as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Coalition parties? In the mucky world of politics who knows? Sadly, the voting public no longer cares, such is its low opinion of politicians and the political system in general.
The "No" vote is ahead in the polls which could spell trouble for Nick Clegg. There is a large section of Liberal Democrats with a phobic hatred of the relationship between Cameron and Clegg and only accept it as a price to pay in order to achieve AV. Should the "Yes" campaign not succeed then the knives will be out for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Coalition government could implode.
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Simon Cowell: Keeping everyone guessing for the X Factor
Simon Cowell, the Supreme King of weekend TV in the United Kingdom, is keeping everyone guessing as to who will join him on the judging panel for the USA X Factor.
US record executive L.A. Reid is so far the only judge confirmed, but Cowell is keeping others, including Cheryl Cole, waiting for the final nod of approval. In Cheryl's case a place on the show would prove of enormous importance for the launch of her own singing career in the US and it must be a nail-biting time for her, although one suspects she knows her fate.
Transmission dates for this year's UK X Factor have yet to be finalised, with the powers-to-be at broadcaster ITV suffering panic attacks over Cowell's reluctance to confirm his own attendance on the show, or the names of his chosen judges.
Part of the problem is that the USA show will clash with the proposed dates for the UK version and Mr Cowell isn't sure he wants to commute long distances every week, although ITV has offered to have a luxury private jet available for his sole use. With the American launch his number one priority, there is a possibility that ITV will schedule the homegrown version for a later date, despite the hole this will create in its advertising revenue.
There is also concern in the UK that Simon Cowell's non-appearance would result in a lack lustre series, with his presence on the judging panel a key to its success amongst contestants and viewers.
It is amazing that a man who knows little about music, but lots about television programming, is one of the most influential figures in the music industry. This week it was announced that Joe McElderry, last year's UK winner has, surprise surprise, been dropped from Cowell's record label.
But the programme has never really been about the contestants, but about the chemistry and fireworks created by the competing egos of the judges. That's why it is taking so long to announce the panels for here and the USA. The success or failure of the shows depends on getting the right mix and if anything that is Simon Cowell's main talent. Oh, and getting heaps of publicity while he makes his mind up.
US record executive L.A. Reid is so far the only judge confirmed, but Cowell is keeping others, including Cheryl Cole, waiting for the final nod of approval. In Cheryl's case a place on the show would prove of enormous importance for the launch of her own singing career in the US and it must be a nail-biting time for her, although one suspects she knows her fate.
Transmission dates for this year's UK X Factor have yet to be finalised, with the powers-to-be at broadcaster ITV suffering panic attacks over Cowell's reluctance to confirm his own attendance on the show, or the names of his chosen judges.
Part of the problem is that the USA show will clash with the proposed dates for the UK version and Mr Cowell isn't sure he wants to commute long distances every week, although ITV has offered to have a luxury private jet available for his sole use. With the American launch his number one priority, there is a possibility that ITV will schedule the homegrown version for a later date, despite the hole this will create in its advertising revenue.
There is also concern in the UK that Simon Cowell's non-appearance would result in a lack lustre series, with his presence on the judging panel a key to its success amongst contestants and viewers.
It is amazing that a man who knows little about music, but lots about television programming, is one of the most influential figures in the music industry. This week it was announced that Joe McElderry, last year's UK winner has, surprise surprise, been dropped from Cowell's record label.
But the programme has never really been about the contestants, but about the chemistry and fireworks created by the competing egos of the judges. That's why it is taking so long to announce the panels for here and the USA. The success or failure of the shows depends on getting the right mix and if anything that is Simon Cowell's main talent. Oh, and getting heaps of publicity while he makes his mind up.
Monday, 11 April 2011
News Of The World Phone Hacking: A nice little earner for the celebs....
The grovelling apology and initial offer of money is unlikely to be enough for the celebrity victims of phone hacking undertaken by News International's News Of The World paper.No doubt those who had their phones tapped and personal information splashed across the Sunday tabloid, have been shocked by the intrusion and as they attempt to find out the extent of the voicemail interceptions, it must have crossed their celebrity minds that the eventual damages could turn into a nice little earner.
Of course, that is making light of a situation whereby one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world, had people amongst its ranks happily engaging in such illegal behaviour. And yet, News International, continues to maintain that senior people, including ex-editors of the News Of the World were not involved, or even knew of the phone hacking and that the activity was undertaken by individual journalists acting alone, presumably putting personal ambition for a story above any moral ethics.
But you would think, wouldn't you, that working within an organisation that prides itself on seeking out and exposing scandal, whether a perverted vicar, movie starlet, unfaithful footballer, or fiddling politician, that rumours of how information was being gathered, would have reached the ears of at least one of the bosses?
The whole sorry mess must infuriate Rupert Murdoch who prefers to rule the world discreetly. However, he will be calmed by the news that the British government has already announced that the illegal activity will not influence the decision on News International's bid for the complete takeover of BSkyB.
As for the victims of the phone hacking. Be careful. News International will have you in its sights and, push it too far, a not very flattering story may just appear when you least expect it. All in the interest of truth and justice.
Edgar Hoover would feel right at home.
Of course, that is making light of a situation whereby one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world, had people amongst its ranks happily engaging in such illegal behaviour. And yet, News International, continues to maintain that senior people, including ex-editors of the News Of the World were not involved, or even knew of the phone hacking and that the activity was undertaken by individual journalists acting alone, presumably putting personal ambition for a story above any moral ethics.
But you would think, wouldn't you, that working within an organisation that prides itself on seeking out and exposing scandal, whether a perverted vicar, movie starlet, unfaithful footballer, or fiddling politician, that rumours of how information was being gathered, would have reached the ears of at least one of the bosses?
The whole sorry mess must infuriate Rupert Murdoch who prefers to rule the world discreetly. However, he will be calmed by the news that the British government has already announced that the illegal activity will not influence the decision on News International's bid for the complete takeover of BSkyB.
As for the victims of the phone hacking. Be careful. News International will have you in its sights and, push it too far, a not very flattering story may just appear when you least expect it. All in the interest of truth and justice.
Edgar Hoover would feel right at home.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
William & Kate: The Royal Wedding....a good knees-up for the peasantry!
The Royal Family has a happy knack of stepping in whenever the country needs cheering up! It is also amazing how the media join in the conspiracy to urge on the peasantry to have a good knees-up and forget their everyday struggles, because there is nothing like a Royal Wedding to spread happiness across the land!
The country may be suffering all sorts of economic woe, but never mind, the Royals are sure to put on a fantastic spectacle for our entertainment. This time, of course, the sacrificial victim will not walk up the aisle a bridal virgin like poor Diana, the late Princess of Wales. Her son has done the decent thing and will be betrothed to the woman who has shared his bed for quite some time. Kate Middleton seems like a nice girl, although already she is being groomed in the ways of the Royals.
Some papers are being snobbish about her family, but they have no right to be. Unlike the Royal Family, who have inherited every penny of its wealth, Miss Middleton's mother and father had the brains and savvy to establish a multi-million pound business, supplying party goods to the great and good. They are even contributing to the wedding itself and, if lucky, may get to shake The Queen's gloved hand on the great day.
After that, they will be pushed aside and may just make it into the photographs should their daughter and her husband be lucky enough to produce little royals to safeguard the future of the Monarchy.
Prince William and his future bride do appear to be making every effort to bring some informality to the occasion and, horror of horrors, Kate will travel by car and not a horse-drawn coach to the service, but will return to the palace in one. It will be shiny and elegant and remind everyone of a gilded cage, perhaps symbolic of her future life, if Diana's experience is anything to go by.
It is expected that the event will be watched by over 2 billion people, with 7,000 journalists arriving in London to cover it.
In this day and age, with people around the world fighting for equality and democracy, isn't there something just a little archaic about the Royals and their aristocratic friends? Or am I just grumpy and upset that my invitation to the big event must have got lost in the post?
The country may be suffering all sorts of economic woe, but never mind, the Royals are sure to put on a fantastic spectacle for our entertainment. This time, of course, the sacrificial victim will not walk up the aisle a bridal virgin like poor Diana, the late Princess of Wales. Her son has done the decent thing and will be betrothed to the woman who has shared his bed for quite some time. Kate Middleton seems like a nice girl, although already she is being groomed in the ways of the Royals.
Some papers are being snobbish about her family, but they have no right to be. Unlike the Royal Family, who have inherited every penny of its wealth, Miss Middleton's mother and father had the brains and savvy to establish a multi-million pound business, supplying party goods to the great and good. They are even contributing to the wedding itself and, if lucky, may get to shake The Queen's gloved hand on the great day.
After that, they will be pushed aside and may just make it into the photographs should their daughter and her husband be lucky enough to produce little royals to safeguard the future of the Monarchy.
Prince William and his future bride do appear to be making every effort to bring some informality to the occasion and, horror of horrors, Kate will travel by car and not a horse-drawn coach to the service, but will return to the palace in one. It will be shiny and elegant and remind everyone of a gilded cage, perhaps symbolic of her future life, if Diana's experience is anything to go by.
It is expected that the event will be watched by over 2 billion people, with 7,000 journalists arriving in London to cover it.
In this day and age, with people around the world fighting for equality and democracy, isn't there something just a little archaic about the Royals and their aristocratic friends? Or am I just grumpy and upset that my invitation to the big event must have got lost in the post?
Nick Clegg: Has a habit of creating negative publicity...
Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister and who, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is the man, barring a miracle, likely to take his party spiralling downwards into the political wilderness, come the May 5th local elections and the next General Election.
These days he has the habit of creating negative publicity wherever he goes and whatever the pronouncements he makes, even when the latter could be seen to be worthwhile and correct. His attack on "jobs for the boys" and a society where it is "not what you know, but who" sounds quite noble, but until he came under pressure later, he somehow failed to declare that HE got his first internship after his own father had a word in the ear of a colleague.
Now, had he made the admission at the time of his speech attacking the system where influence is more important than ability, then it would have seemed like he had a humbling "road to Damascus" experience. But by being forced to admit it later, it appeared that Mr Clegg was deliberately hiding the privileges his very rich privately-educated background provided.
The handsome Nick Clegg started off as the "golden boy" of this Coalition government, but there are times when he appears to be its most lonely and impotent figures. He has also managed to make his party, the Liberal Democrats, appear to be the messengers of doom for Coalition policies, while somehow David Cameron and his party have mostly escaped the public's censure.
Of course the current debacle over the NHS overhaul has created real problems for the Prime Minister and Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, a fellow-Conservative. Mr Clegg and his party are against many of the proposed changes, whilst Mr Cameron is being seen to wobble in the face of public scrutiny over a policy that was originally hailed as a cornerstone of Conservatives-in-government dogma.
Mr Cameron, in full spin doctor mode, has now declared that people should be consulted before major changes are made, making the hapless Mr Lansley look isolated and guilty of delivering ill-prepared and badly-judged reform proposals. The Prime Minister's backtracking and new desire for further consultation at such a late stage makes the government look incompetent and himself weak in the face of criticism. It also, perhaps for the first time, makes Nick Clegg look less a poodle of the Conservative majority in this Coalition.
Perhaps Mr Clegg's gamble, that by the next General Election the Liberal Democrats will be seen by a currently ungrateful public as the conscience of the government in its pursuit of social equality, will prove correct?
These days he has the habit of creating negative publicity wherever he goes and whatever the pronouncements he makes, even when the latter could be seen to be worthwhile and correct. His attack on "jobs for the boys" and a society where it is "not what you know, but who" sounds quite noble, but until he came under pressure later, he somehow failed to declare that HE got his first internship after his own father had a word in the ear of a colleague.
Now, had he made the admission at the time of his speech attacking the system where influence is more important than ability, then it would have seemed like he had a humbling "road to Damascus" experience. But by being forced to admit it later, it appeared that Mr Clegg was deliberately hiding the privileges his very rich privately-educated background provided.
The handsome Nick Clegg started off as the "golden boy" of this Coalition government, but there are times when he appears to be its most lonely and impotent figures. He has also managed to make his party, the Liberal Democrats, appear to be the messengers of doom for Coalition policies, while somehow David Cameron and his party have mostly escaped the public's censure.
Of course the current debacle over the NHS overhaul has created real problems for the Prime Minister and Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, a fellow-Conservative. Mr Clegg and his party are against many of the proposed changes, whilst Mr Cameron is being seen to wobble in the face of public scrutiny over a policy that was originally hailed as a cornerstone of Conservatives-in-government dogma.
Mr Cameron, in full spin doctor mode, has now declared that people should be consulted before major changes are made, making the hapless Mr Lansley look isolated and guilty of delivering ill-prepared and badly-judged reform proposals. The Prime Minister's backtracking and new desire for further consultation at such a late stage makes the government look incompetent and himself weak in the face of criticism. It also, perhaps for the first time, makes Nick Clegg look less a poodle of the Conservative majority in this Coalition.
Perhaps Mr Clegg's gamble, that by the next General Election the Liberal Democrats will be seen by a currently ungrateful public as the conscience of the government in its pursuit of social equality, will prove correct?
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Wayne Rooney: From Zero to Hero in the immoral world of English Football
So, Wayne Rooney scored the goal against Chelsea tonight and in the immoral world of English football, immediately went, once again, from zero to hero, despite his recent obnoxious behaviour. Last Saturday he scored three goals against West Ham and instead of it being a celebration of his talent, he couldn't resist swearing into a camera that he must have known was beaming live pictures.
If he was not a famous footballer, he is the type of guy who bouncers outside the doors of nightclubs, are trained not to allow inside for fear they would start a fight and trash the place. For all his money, he is a yob, an ignorant chav, who has failed to educate himself in the ways of the civilised world and, because of his skill and his riches, gets away with behaviour befitting a thug.
The many people who surround him must be reluctant to sit him down and tell him his behaviour is unacceptable. And why should they risk his wrath? He continues to bring home the bacon for his family, his wife Colleen needs him to enhance her own status and has forgiven him at least twice for his use of prostitutes, even when she was carrying his child. Alex Ferguson and Manchester United appear not to give a damn about player behaviour so long as it does not have a negative impact on their red empire. Even though, they must secretly despise him for the disloyalty he showed during his contract negotiations.
As a footballer he is undoubtedly talented, but as a man he leaves a lot to be desired and it is perhaps time he dealt with the issues that surely must haunt him.
If he was not a famous footballer, he is the type of guy who bouncers outside the doors of nightclubs, are trained not to allow inside for fear they would start a fight and trash the place. For all his money, he is a yob, an ignorant chav, who has failed to educate himself in the ways of the civilised world and, because of his skill and his riches, gets away with behaviour befitting a thug.
The many people who surround him must be reluctant to sit him down and tell him his behaviour is unacceptable. And why should they risk his wrath? He continues to bring home the bacon for his family, his wife Colleen needs him to enhance her own status and has forgiven him at least twice for his use of prostitutes, even when she was carrying his child. Alex Ferguson and Manchester United appear not to give a damn about player behaviour so long as it does not have a negative impact on their red empire. Even though, they must secretly despise him for the disloyalty he showed during his contract negotiations.
As a footballer he is undoubtedly talented, but as a man he leaves a lot to be desired and it is perhaps time he dealt with the issues that surely must haunt him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)